From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <yipeng1.wang@intel.com> Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AAEA1B6E9 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 00:13:35 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Feb 2019 15:13:34 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,345,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="113255225" Received: from orsmsx109.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.240.7]) by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2019 15:13:33 -0800 Received: from orsmsx161.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.84) by ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:13:33 -0800 Received: from orsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.11]) by ORSMSX161.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.192]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:13:33 -0800 From: "Wang, Yipeng1" <yipeng1.wang@intel.com> To: "Gobriel, Sameh" <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, "Medvedkin, Vladimir" <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>, "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of Toeplitz hash Thread-Index: AQHUvghA2VFjkJTRF0apg+C3p5ihJqXVQMIAgAAgbgCAAAI7gP//fGZg Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:13:33 +0000 Message-ID: <D2C4A16CA39F7F4E8E384D204491D7A6734753DA@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <1549375057-4211-1-git-send-email-vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> <5937441.0T0pBNs0GK@xps> <af930adb-1b2a-544b-19c1-361430eaf094@intel.com> <8657694.f1liP514bC@xps> <D6455DCED8CA9B4B940598A7ACF7B9FDB50256E4@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <D6455DCED8CA9B4B940598A7ACF7B9FDB50256E4@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.400.15 dlp-reaction: no-action x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiZTU0NWQ1NDUtNWU2My00ZGY5LTkwYzYtYzk4YTg5YzI4YzEwIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoib0o5a0RRUVZkVTJTUzdsMXlSMHFrcU1CNnhTYW5hSmZFeVwvXC9XMkthNlVCWUJCcmFXZXZ6czBvUUhzSEJpRWR5In0= x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.138] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of Toeplitz hash X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 23:13:35 -0000 Hi Vladimir, Thanks for stepping up for the maintaining job. I agree with you that they are two parts and we mixed hash table and hashin= g function from beginning. They are actually should be two libraries, but a= t this Stage it is not very necessary to change the situation yet I think. If you trust us, I will definitely consult with you for questions coming up= about thash (also other hash functions like crc and jhash to the correspon= ding Authors). I will also get more familiar with the code as the maintainer. Thanks Yipeng >-----Original Message----- >From: Gobriel, Sameh >Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:33 PM >To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Medvedkin, Vladimir <vladimir.m= edvedkin@intel.com> >Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruc= e <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, >Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.= com> >Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of To= eplitz hash > >I agree with Thomas. It makes sense to separate out hash function from has= h table implementation. > >Sameh > >-----Original Message----- >From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] >Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:25 PM >To: Medvedkin, Vladimir <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> >Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; Gobriel, Sameh <= sameh.gobriel@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce ><bruce.richardson@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@= intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> >Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of To= eplitz hash > >07/02/2019 20:28, Medvedkin, Vladimir: >> On 06/02/2019 10:38, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> > 05/02/2019 14:57, Vladimir Medvedkin: >> >> --- a/MAINTAINERS >> >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >> >> +M: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> >> >> +F: lib/librte_hash/rte_thash.h >> > I'm not sure about adding maintainership for one file. >> > You are the author of this file, so you should be consulted during >> > reviews if you don't catch them by yourself. >> > But I prefer seeing maintainers as taking charge and understanding >> > of a full library as a block. >> > >> > And unfortunately, it does not work with the script: >> > devtools/get-maintainer.sh lib/librte_hash/rte_cuckoo_hash.h You >> > would appear as maintainer for all hash files. >> >> It could be solved by adding header. >> >> In fact thash is not used by other parts of the hash library (instead >> it could be used by softnic for example). >> >> From my point of view, hash library consists of two parts, hash table >> itself and a number of hash functions. Hash functions, in turn, can be >> used for many other purposes, not just for a hash table. Maybe we >> should separate hash functions and hash table? And if you think it is >> a bad idea, so be it, 4 maintainers for hash is enough. > >I don't know. >It's opening the door for more split of maintainers areas. >I would like to get more opinions from other maintainers, please. >